Impact of Missed and Late Meal Boluses on Glycemic Outcomes in Automated Insulin Delivery-Treated Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Two-Center, Population-Based, Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of missed or late meal boluses (MLBs) on glycemic outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: AID-treated (Tandem Control-IQ or Medtronic MiniMed 780G) children and adolescents (aged 6-21 years) from Stanford Medical Center and Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen with ≥10 days of data were included in this two-center, binational, population-based, retrospective, 1-month cohort study. The primary outcome was the association between number of algorithm-detected MLBs and time in target glucose range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL). RESULTS: The study included 189 children and adolescents (48% females with a mean ± SD age of 13 ± 4 years). Overall, the mean number of MLBs per day in the cohort was 2.2 ± 0.9. For each additional MLB per day, TIR decreased by 9.7%-points (95% CI 11.3; 8.1), and compared to the quartile with fewest MLBs (Q1), the quartile with most (Q4) had 22.9% less TIR (95% CI 27.2; 18.6). The age-, sex-, and treatment modality-adjusted probability of achieving a TIR of >70% in Q4 was 1.4% compared to 74.8% in Q1 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MLBs significantly impacted glycemic outcomes in AID-treated children and adolescents. The results emphasize the importance of maintaining a focus on bolus behavior to achieve higher TIR, and supports the need for further research in technological or behavioral support tools to handle missed and late meal boluses.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Metrics and Hypoglycemia Duration in Insulin-Experienced Individuals With Long-standing Type 2 Diabetes Switched From a Daily Basal Insulin to Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec: Post Hoc Analysis of ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis assessed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based metrics and hypoglycemia duration with once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin analogs in insulin-experienced individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes from two 26-week phase 3a trials (ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Time in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), time above range (TAR) (>10.0 mmol/L), and time below range (TBR) (<3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L) were assessed during three CGM time periods (switch [weeks 0-4], end of treatment [weeks 22-26], and follow-up [weeks 27-31]) for icodec versus comparators (ONWARDS 2, insulin degludec [basal regimen]; ONWARDS 4, insulin glargine U100 [basal-bolus regimen]) using double-blind CGM data. CGM-derived hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was assessed. RESULTS: In both trials, there were no statistically significant differences in TIR, TAR, or TBR (<3.0 mmol/L) for icodec versus comparators across all time periods. In the end-of-treatment period, mean TIR was 63.1% (icodec) vs. 59.5% (degludec) in ONWARDS 2 and 66.9% (icodec) vs. 66.4% (glargine U100) in ONWARDS 4. Mean TBR <3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L remained within recommended targets (<4% and <1%, respectively) across time periods and treatment arms. Hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was comparable across time periods and treatment arms (median duration ≤40 min). CONCLUSIONS: In insulin-experienced participants with long-standing type 2 diabetes, CGM-based TIR, TAR, and CGM-derived hypoglycemia duration (<3.9 mmol/L) were comparable for icodec and once-daily basal insulin analogs during all time periods. TBR remained within recommended targets.

Factory-Calibrated Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Type 1 Diabetes: Accuracy during In-Clinic Exercise and Home Use.

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are valuable tools for improving glycemic control, yet their accuracy might be influenced by physical activity. This study sought to assess the accuracy of the three latest factory-calibrated CGM systems available in Europe at the time the study was conducted, both during aerobic exercise and in typical daily scenarios. The accuracy evaluation, based on metrics such as the median absolute relative difference (MARD) and point and rate error-grid analyses (PEGA and REGA), involved 13 adults with type 1 diabetes. Participants wore all sensors during a 1 h in-clinic exercise session followed by a subsequent 3-day home period, with blood glucose measurements serving as reference values in both contexts. During exercise, no statistically significant differences in MARD were observed (Dexcom G6: 12.6%, Guardian 4: 10.7%, and Freestyle Libre 2: 17.2%; p = 0.31), and similarly, no significant differences emerged in PEGA-zone-AB (100%, 100%, 96.8%; p = 0.37). Nevertheless, Freestyle Libre 2 showed comparatively diminished accuracy in estimating glucose trends during exercise (REGA-zone-AB: 100%, 93.0%, 73.3%; p = 0.0003). In the home environment, Freestyle Libre 2 exhibited a significantly higher MARD when compared to the other systems (10.2%, 11.9%, 16.7%, p = 0.02). Overall, Dexcom G6 and Guardian 4 demonstrated superior accuracy in both exercise and daily life scenarios compared to Freestyle Libre 2.

Glucose Monitoring Metrics in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes Using Different Treatment Modalities: A Real-World Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the association between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic metrics and different insulin treatment modalities using real-world data. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Denmark, included individuals with type 1 diabetes using CGM. Data from September 2021 to August 2022 were analyzed if CGM was used for at least 20% of a 4-week period. Individuals were divided into four groups: multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy, insulin pumps with unintegrated CGM (SUP), sensor-augmented pumps with low glucose management (SAP), and automated insulin delivery (AID). The MDI and SUP groups were further subdivided based on CGM alarm features. The primary outcome was percentage of time in range (TIR: 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for each treatment group. Secondary outcomes included other glucose metrics and HbA1c. RESULTS: Out of 6,314 attendees, 3,184 CGM users were included in the analysis. Among them, 1,622 used MDI, 504 used SUP, 354 used SAP, and 561 used AID. Median TIR was 54.0% for MDI, 54.9% for SUP, 62,9% for SAP, and 72,1% for AID users. The proportion of individuals achieving all recommended glycemic targets (TIR >70%, time above range <25%, and time below range <4%) was significantly higher in SAP (odds ratio [OR] 2.4 [95% CI 1.6-3.5]) and AID (OR 9.4 [95% CI 6.7-13.0]) compared with MDI without alarm features. CONCLUSIONS: AID appears superior to other insulin treatment modalities with CGM. Although bias may be present because of indications, AID should be considered the preferred choice for insulin pump therapy.

Pen-administered low-dose dasiglucagon vs usual care for prevention and treatment of non-severe hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes during free-living conditions: a Phase II, randomised, open-label, two-period crossover trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Consumption of excess carbohydrates to manage hypoglycaemia can lead to rebound hyperglycaemia and promote weight gain. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy, safety and feasibility of pen-administered low-dose dasiglucagon for prevention and treatment of non-severe hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes during free-living conditions. METHODS: Twenty-four adults with insulin pump-treated type 1 diabetes (HbA1c ≤70 mmol/mol [8.5%]) completed a randomised, open-label, two-period crossover study with 2 week periods. During the usual care and dasiglucagon intervention (DASI) periods, participants managed impending and manifested episodes of hypoglycaemia with regular carbohydrate consumption or pen-administered low-dose (80 µg) s.c. dasiglucagon, respectively. Glycaemic control was evaluated using continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6) and event registration of prevention and treatment episodes. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, the mean difference (95% CI) in the DASI period for time in (3.9-10.0 mmol/l) and below (<3.9 mmol/l) range was 2.4 %-points (-0.7, 5.5) and -0.5 %-points (-1.2, 0.2), respectively. In the DASI period, recovery rate (time from hypoglycaemia treatment to euglycaemia) was 44% (11, 87) faster while total daily carbohydrate intake was reduced by 11% (-18, -3). Dasiglucagon use was safe and well tolerated with mild nausea being the most frequent adverse effect. Among the participants, 96% (p<0.0001) were likely to include dasiglucagon in their future routine management of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Use of low-dose dasiglucagon to prevent and treat non-severe hypoglycaemia during free-living conditions was safe, fast and efficacious while significantly reducing the total daily carbohydrate intake and yielding high treatment satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04764968 FUNDING: The study was an investigator-initiated trial. Zealand Pharma supplied the investigational drug and device and provided financial support for the conduct of the trial.

Performance of a dual-hormone closed-loop system versus insulin-only closed-loop system in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. A single-blind, randomized, controlled, crossover trial.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of a dual-hormone (DH [insulin and glucagon]) closed-loop system compared to a single-hormone (SH [insulin only]) closed-loop system in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Methods: This was a 26-hour, two-period, randomized, crossover, inpatient study involving 11 adolescents with type 1 diabetes (nine males [82%], mean ± SD age 14.8 ± 1.4 years, diabetes duration 5.7 ± 2.3 years). Except for the treatment configuration of the DiaCon Artificial Pancreas: DH or SH, experimental visits were identical consisting of: an overnight stay (10:00 pm until 7:30 am), several meals/snacks, and a 45-minute bout of moderate intensity continuous exercise. The primary endpoint was percentage of time spent with sensor glucose values below range (TBR [<3.9 mmol/L]) during closed-loop control over the 26-h period (5:00 pm, day 1 to 7:00 pm, day 2). Results: Overall, there were no differences between DH and SH for the following glycemic outcomes (median [IQR]): TBR 1.6 [0.0, 2.4] vs. 1.28 [0.16, 3.19]%, p=1.00; time in range (TIR [3.9-10.0 mmol/L]) 68.4 [48.7, 76.8] vs. 75.7 [69.8, 87.1]%, p=0.08; and time above range (TAR [>10.0 mmol/L]) 28.1 [18.1, 49.8] vs. 23.3 [12.3, 27.2]%, p=0.10. Mean ( ± SD) glucose was higher during DH than SH (8.7 ( ± 3.2) vs. 8.1 ( ± 3.0) mmol/L, p<0.001) but coefficient of variation was similar (34.8 ( ± 6.8) vs. 37.3 ( ± 8.6)%, p=0.20). The average amount of rescue carbohydrates was similar between DH and SH (6.8 ( ± 12.3) vs. 9.5 ( ± 15.4) grams/participant/visit, p=0.78). Overnight, TIR was higher, TAR was lower during the SH visit compared to DH. During and after exercise (4:30 pm until 7 pm) the SH configuration produced higher TIR, but similar TAR and TBR compared to the DH configuration. Conclusions: DH and SH performed similarly in adolescents with type 1 diabetes during a 26-hour inpatient monitoring period involving several metabolic challenges including feeding and exercise. However, during the night and around exercise, the SH configuration outperformed DH.

Low-Dose Dasiglucagon Versus Oral Glucose for Prevention of Insulin-Induced Hypoglycemia in People With Type 1 Diabetes: A Phase 2, Randomized, Three-Arm Crossover Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of low-dose subcutaneous dasiglucagon with oral glucose for prevention of insulin-induced hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injection or insulin pump therapy completed a phase 2, randomized, three-arm crossover study. On each study visit, an individualized subcutaneous insulin bolus was administered aiming for a plasma glucose (PG) concentration of 3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL). When a PG concentration of 4.5 mmol/L (81 mg/dL) was reached, 15 g oral glucose (CHO) from dextrose tablets, 80 µg dasiglucagon (D80), or 120 µg dasiglucagon (D120) was administered. PG was measured frequently for the following 180 min. RESULTS: Hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL]) occurred in 10 participants after CHO, in 5 after D80, and in 4 after D120 (CHO vs. D80, P = 0.096; CHO vs. D120, P = 0.034). Time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL]) was 14%, 7%, and 6% for CHO, D80, and D120, respectively (P = 0.273). The median time (95% CI) from intervention to first increase in PG of 1.1 mmol/L (20 mg/dL) was 30 (25-50), 15 (15-20), and 15 (15-20) minutes for CHO, D80, and D120, respectively (CHO vs. D80, P = 0.006; CHO vs. D120, P = 0.003). Episodes of nausea were numerically, but not significantly, higher after dasiglucagon administration. No significant differences in visual analog scale-assessed adverse effects were observed between interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose dasiglucagon safely and effectively prevented insulin-induced hypoglycemia with a faster glucose-elevating profile than oral glucose.

The effect of preceding glucose decline rate on low-dose glucagon efficacy in individuals with type 1 diabetes: A randomized crossover trial.

Identifying determinants of low-dose glucagon efficacy is important to optimise its utilization for prevention and treatment of hypoglycaemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes. The study objective was to investigate whether the preceding glucose decline rate affects glucose response to low-dose glucagon administration. Ten adults with insulin pump-treated type 1 diabetes were included in this randomized, single-blind, two-way crossover study. Using a hyperinsulinaemic clamp technique, plasma glucose levels were reduced with either a rapid or slow decline rate while maintaining fixed insulin levels. When the plasma glucose level reached 3.9 mmoL/L, insulin and glucose infusions were discontinued and 150 µg subcutaneous glucagon was administered, followed by 120 minutes of plasma glucose monitoring. The positive incremental area under the glucose curve after administration of low-dose glucagon did not differ between the rapid-decline and slow-decline visits (mean ± SEM: 220 ± 49 vs. 174 ± 31 mmoL/L x min; P = 0.21). Similarly, no differences in total area under the glucose curve, peak plasma glucose, incremental peak plasma glucose, time-to-peak plasma glucose or end plasma glucose were observed. Thus, preceding glucose decline rate did not significantly affect the glucose response to low-dose glucagon.

Effect of adjunctive glucose-lowering drugs on body weight in people with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity increases the risk of comorbidities and diabetes-related complications and, consequently, efforts to prevent and reduce excess weight in people with type 1 diabetes are essential. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to assess the effect of adjunctive glucose-lowering drugs on body weight and other important health outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of adjunctive glucose-lowering drugs for treatment of people with type 1 diabetes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be searched from inception to present. Key eligibility criteria include: RCT study design; adult participants with type 1 diabetes; treatment with a glucose-lowering drug for ≥24 weeks; and comparison of the intervention to placebo, usual care or another glucose-lowering drug. The primary outcome is change in body weight. Other major outcomes include change in HbA1c and total daily insulin dose and risk of hypoglycaemia and other adverse events. Dual study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed. Results from the meta-analysis will be presented as weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored by subgroup and sensitivity analysis. A network meta-analysis for the primary outcome will be performed using an arm-based random-effects model based on the Bayesian framework while assessing for transitivity across studies and consistency between direct and indirect estimates. The overall quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for each outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical assessment is required. The results of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020158676.

Glucose Sensor Accuracy After Subcutaneous Glucagon Injections Near to Sensor Site.

Background: Integrated hormone delivery and glucose sensing is warranted, but system performance could be challenged by glucose sensor susceptibility to pharmacological interferences. The aim of this study was to compare sensor accuracy (Medtronic Enlite 2®) after subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of low-dose glucagon near to versus remote from sensor site. Methods: Twelve adults with insulin-pump-treated type 1 diabetes wore two continuous glucose monitors (CGMglucagon and CGMcontrol) placed on each side of the abdomen before, during, and after two overnight 14-h in-clinic visits. During each visit, a s.c. 100 µg glucagon injection was administered 2 cm next to the CGMglucagon followed by another injection of 100 µg glucagon 2 h later at the same site. CGM performance was evaluated using 4-h in-clinic Yellow Spring Instrument (YSI) measurements and 3-day self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in free-living conditions. Results: Using YSI as comparator, no difference in the median absolute relative difference (MARD) for CGMglucagon (15.7%) and CGMcontrol (13.4%) was found (P = 0.195). Similarly, no difference in MARD was found between CGMglucagon (11.0%) and CGMcontrol (6.2%) using SMBG as comparator (P = 0.148). Values in zone A + B of Clarke error grid analysis did not differ between CGMglucagon and CGMcontrol using YSI (93.9% vs. 91.1%, P = 0.250) and SMBG (97.3% vs. 95.0%, P = 0.375) as reference measurement. The precision absolute relative deviation between sensors was 13.7%. Conclusions: Sensor accuracy was not significantly affected by administration of s.c. glucagon near to sensor site.

Scandinavian Multicenter Acute Subdural Hematoma (SMASH) Study: Study Protocol for a Multinational Population-Based Consecutive Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic acute subdural hematomas (ASDHs) are associated with high rate of morbidity and mortality, especially in elderly individuals. However, recent reports indicate that the morbidity and mortality rates might have improved. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate postoperative (30-d) mortality in younger vs elderly (≥70 yr) patients with ASDH. Comparing younger and elderly patients, the secondary objectives are morbidity patterns of care and 6 mo outcome according to Glasgow outcome scale (GOS). Finally, in patients with traumatic ASDH, we aim to provide prognostic variables. METHODS: This is a large-scale population-based Scandinavian study including all neurosurgical departments in Denmark and Sweden. All adult (≥18 yr) patients surgically treated between 2010 and 2014 for a traumatic ASDH in Denmark and Sweden will be included. Identification at clinicaltrials.gov is NCT03284190. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: We expect to provide data on potential differences between younger vs elderly patients in terms of mortality and morbidity. We hypothesize that elderly patients selected for surgery have a similar pattern of care as compared with younger patients. We will provide functional outcome in terms of GOS at 6 mo in younger vs elderly patients undergoing ASDH evacuation. Finally, clinical useful prognostic factors for favorable (GOS 4-5) vs unfavorable (GOS 1-3) will be identified. DISCUSSION: An improved understanding of the clinical outcome, treatment and resource allocation, clinical course, and the prognostic factors of traumatic ASDH will allow neurosurgeons to make better treatment decisions.